Three weeks of fighting = about 750 Lebanese people - mainly civilians - dead and half a million people are said to have fled their homes. 52 Israeli's including at least 18 civilians have been killed.
Hezbollah - resistance group/freedom fighters or terrorists? a group that began with the aim of getting rid of Israel from Lebanese territory which they achieved in May 2000. So what are they doing now? Well officially what they wanted was prisoner exchange, like what they achieved in 2000 when they exchanged the dead bodies of three Israeli soldiers they had captured for 430 Palestinians and Lebanese held in Israeli jails. Not a bad deal! It was also intended to send a warning to Israel not to conduct border raids and some sort of dramatic gesture of solidarity with the Palestinians (remember they supports the destruction of the state of Israel). They got more than they planned for it seems. They were supposed to disarm in 2004 and integrate with the army - seems they like their own autonomy to be above the law in certain things.
Israel - the victim or the aggressor? A country that is surrounded by nations hostile to its very existence and therefore takes any attacks as a kind of an attack on one is an attack on all. Paranoid some might say when it was just two soldiers kidnapped but perhaps they see it as an opportunity to resecure their boundaries with a sort of buffer zone, weaken Hezbollah and remind the surrounding nations once again that they are here to stay. The response was certainly severe - air attacks, calling up reserves, blockade of sea and air and not much regard for civilian casulties along the way. Yet is it all justified under the banner of self defence? I don't think anyone would deny Israel that right, it's just whether its a tad disproportionate to the hostile act committed, which isn't really the "act of war" Olmert says it is. But when you have a 'resistance' group on your doorstep, wishing to destroy you, with the financial backing of Syria and Iran, ready to lobb rockets right back at you with equal ferocity.........
Is either side innocent? No. Can both sides be sympathised with - to some extent yes. Is there a solution - probably not yet, only once they become war weary.
And then there's Lebanon - stuck in the middle or perhaps not? Yes its had a civil war between Muslims and Christians, its been invaded by Israel, occupied by Syria, patrolled by the UN and now has rockets flying into its capital killing its people and damaging its infrastructure. Hezbollah were elected to the Lebanese government and have some good social services running. Yet by virtue of their presence in the south, the Lebanese authorities don't have full control and they really must deal with Hezbollah - insist they integrate. Since the rockets have fallen, they have said they are 'talking' to Hezbollah to get them to stop. If rockets from Israel aren't working, why would diplomacy do any good?
And the UN - talking shop or resolver? grrr they so often just sit around and chat, bring out ambigious politically correct resolutions that please everybody, and end with 'we shall remain actively seized of the matter'. Currently haggling over the details of an international force, interestingly enough to be led by France if it happens, the resolution is going to call for an end to the violence. Is anyone going to listen? The Resolution carries the "moral authority of the UN" says the BBC. hmmm....... It may work if the US politically sits on Israel to make them stop but they might not, since who, with sufficient political clout, will sit on Hezbollah. Iran and Syria? I doubt it. But I could be proved wrong.
The conclusion of this conflict should be interesting!
2 comments:
The UN might need more than moral authority here - some military might wouldn't go amiss, even if it's just to be threatening.
But the UN and military might have never gone well together. It's frequently slow to get off the ground, badly co-ordinated, never listened to by either of the warring sides and darts out as soon as they get casulties.
Post a Comment